Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5]   Go Down

Author Topic: Is 20,000 enough?  (Read 22967 times)

Zack Bass

  • Guest
Re:Is 20,000 enough?
« Reply #60 on: July 09, 2003, 11:25:27 pm »


You know, there are not many people with that ambition anymore. They talk about wanting freedom but they want houses readymade for 'em to walk into. Same for jobs.  We don't have enough greedy capitalists among the Porcupines to build enough houses or be employers.


I have often said that we cannot persuade many Statists in the Chosen State, and therefore it's pointless to concern ourselves about their opinions.  But I have a different view of Capitalists who will want to exploit us.  They don't have to be Porcupines.  They can be raving Liberals for all I care, as long as they smell a billion bucks to be made.
And make no mistake, this is a multi-billion-dollar deal.  If someone set up a factory (and maybe even company housing for new employees) and infrastructure, and it cost him a billion dollars, that is, $10,000 for each of 100,000 Porcupines, he would have a first-rate business and one hell of a Return on Investment.  Lots of us would be eager to have just about any decent job in a place where we can be Free.  I'd take any position there: assembly line, sweeping up, quality control, computer automation if I'm lucky....
And he'd have the prospect of ever-decreasing taxes and no regulation!

Logged

Zack Bass

  • Guest
Re:Is 20,000 enough?
« Reply #61 on: July 09, 2003, 11:28:35 pm »


Not so fast there buddy. If you look at my post I didn't say anything about jobs.


Yes, I understand that.  I was combining your comment about a labor shortage with many other comments that have said that there will not be enough employment there.  Somebody's got to be mistaken; they can't have it both ways.

Logged

Mickey

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 155
  • Libertarian, Objectivist, head-banger
Re:Is 20,000 enough?
« Reply #62 on: July 10, 2003, 03:49:41 pm »

Yes, I understand that.  I was combining your comment about a labor shortage with many other comments that have said that there will not be enough employment there.  Somebody's got to be mistaken; they can't have it both ways.

Yea, I know. The way you put it, though, made me look like I was contradicting myself. Just had to clear things up.
Logged
Ubi libertas ibi patria
Where there is Liberty, there is my homeland.

Robert H.

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1361
  • Jeffersonian
    • Devolution USA
Re:Is 20,000 enough?
« Reply #63 on: August 12, 2003, 04:47:15 pm »

Your own citation of the 80/20 rule means 100,000 Porcupines are needed in order to get 20,000 activists. That 20,000 signed up does NOT mean they are activists. Many of us have been involved in too many organizations where people “signed up” but were not activists. We who have been among the 20% have learned the hard reality of the 80/20 rule. By “twice” do you mean that out of the larger number only 20% will be fair weather “activists” and than only 20% of them will be the really serious activists that a Free State effort will need for Liberty in your Lifetime?  Then, out of 20,000 the 20% results in fair weather 4,000 “activists” and out of those there may only be 800 serious activists?
I agree.
That is what scares me.
And that is why I emphasize starting with 100,000 activists -- so the first 20% really are 20,000 activists and the next 20% cut still leaves the Free State effort with 4,000 serious activists.

I think Joe's cautions are especially important due to the fact that libertarianism is a different breed of political animal.  Many people, in fact, I'd hazard a guess that most people are basically of a conservative nature, but libertarianism is a whole other step beyond that, and it makes many people decidedly uncomfortable.  Having as many allies as possible going into this will be key, and we may find them among a host of politically "homeless" individuals.

Joe often refers to Maine's reputation for backing third parties (Perot gaining more votes there than Bush in 1992!), and I would add Alaska in as one of those states where we may find a large, sympathetic audience from which to make new allies.  I would particularly emphasize Alaska because the number of 'independent' voters is so very high in comparison to the population as a whole.

In Alaska, as of 2000, those voters registered as "unaffiliated," "non-partisan," and "other," outnumbered those voters registered as Republican and Democrat combined:  245,379 to 192,214.  And considering that Alaska also has the largest third party in the US, the Alaska Independence Party, with over 17,000 registered voters, there's some real potential there.  We may find the allies we need, and they may actually be large enough in proportion to the general population to make a serious impact in Alaska.

We may already have 100,000 potential supporters there, Joe.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5]   Go Up